##VIDEO ID:CP3q7QgiQuM## [Music] okay everybody we have enough people to start 7:31 so with that I will open up this meeting of the Highland Park planning board it's November 7 2024 this meeting is called to order in accordance with the open public meetings Act notice of this meeting was provided to the home News Tribune The Star Ledger and the Highland Park planet on January 23rd 2024 and posted on the burrow website at www.hpborrow.com and on the bulon board at burough Hall 221 South fth Avenue Highland Park New Jersey and has remained continuously posted as required by law fire exits are to the left and right of Chambers and as always please remember to speak into your microphone uh when making your commentary call please miss H yes Mr brusher yes Mr Chin missing Mr hail here Mr Lis here Mr M mrman here Mr Stern Cardel here Mr Williams here Mr Lynch here Mr cza here Mr C here thank you so much all right well we'll start with our housekeeping on the minutes for the September 12 2024 meeting anyone on the board have any comments about the draft minutes anybody I don't have any either so seeing that I will solicit a motion to a motion oh go ahead I'll make a motion to conf I motion by Jeff anyone second seconded by Allan I always for is this one roll call or or all right all in favor of adopting the September 12 2024 meeting minutes say I I I all opposed any extensions I abstention by Paul also abstain abion by danern Cardell which just still gives us five so we're still good okay motion passes with that we'll go on to the main item of business in our agenda which is a consistency review ordinance number 24-20 N7 has been referred to us to see if the ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan and specifically it is an ordinance of the burough Highland Park middlex County state of New Jersey amending the downtown Redevelopment plan for tracks a through D so with that I'll turn the floor over to our planner who can give us some edification and background on what is in fact being done to amend the Redevelopment plan or propos to [Music] be M sure you want to introduce Brickly sure um I just wanted to put a little context that you know since we started this whole Redevelopment process we've kind of described it as painting a picture or making a frame um a lot of what we're going to see tonight is um more detail on some of the pictures more specific on the picture but really it's a a repackaging and update the previous plan to sort of incorporate all of the things we we've passed and done in in over the last couple years and it also reflects um in particular sort of changes that that we've all approved of of tra it's gotten a lot bigger it's gotten a lot um more more specific um but the way that this is written then it's designed is so that it's a lot more easy it's a lot easier to follow we did a lot of editing and cutting to sort of try and pair it down to the um the essentials and hopefully um uh tonight we're going to talk a lot about track c um because that's where most of the of the attention is but the process that we're going through tonight of amending for a through D but focusing on track C is probably one that we're going to see again like we'll make amendments to A or B as they come up um as they sort of come online um but we Chris and his team sort of structure this as um our hope that this is going to be an easier process for making Amendment which we anticipate and which we want to do um as we go forward um uh there's a lot of things in here um you know specifically about public benefits public parking public space um sort of make sure that those are placeholders because we know how important that is so um so anyway it's it's I think this is a an update an improvement a good thing um and I hope we go for it thank you uh this sort a general overview of the rest of the presentation I'll start with uh kind of Happ what counc ha said along with the purpose of this Redevelopment plan uh a brief description of the rment plan procedure and statory requirements about the existing conditions evolution of the tra on there there is certainly I think from the public standpoint what the heck's going on how this happened it started in 2005 and a lot of things happened in the past five years alone so I'm going to sort of show that Evolution graphically talk about the original and refined vision for track c as well as the actual to the development regulations so again starting beginning in 2020 the B initiated a Redevelopment planning process to really create a plan to really try to jump start development downtown I think as anyone knows in our master plan we recognize not much had happened downtown since 2005 uh and so we came in sort of do area rehap designation for the entire town do some sight specific ROP plans um for the downtown area this is another strategy that began again in 2020 in 2021 the burough adopted this speed development plan which again as Council Hil indicated applies to four traes land label a through d uh that's currently in place following the adoption of the 21 plan the burrow in 2022 issued a request for proposals RFP with the the idea that respondents could really look at the proposed Redevelopment plan and RP has specific expectations of Redevelopment for each tra and allow for RP respondents to really consider Redevelopment within as well as on adjacent property the idea was want to give flexibility um we want to be we did not want to be rigid as a 2005 plan was uh the burrow did receive several respondents uh proposals and in 2023 the burough selected two conditional redevelopers uh they start for track a the conditional redeveloper is tanton Fel HP LLC which is now HP rare Den reel LLC and for track C 232 RAR Avenue LLC also um subsidiary of garden homes the same redevelop that did the fredderick 31 River Road also through Redevelopment and that's s redeveloper for t uh in after the selection of garden homes as the redeveloper traditional redeveloper for track c um the garden homes proposal included properties that went beyond the 2001 plan and as such the burough Council decided is appropriate at the time to consider adding additional properties to revelop area by virt of prelimary Investigation this Bo reviewed that U preim investigation with study in 2024 the bur Council based on the favorable opinion of the planning board determined that those several additional properties qualified as a non-c comination area near Dev thus expanding the footprint of try um and following that expansion that allowed the ability of the burrow to work more closely with the traditional redeveloped garden homes to consider a concept plan and a status of what's happening with the uh South thir pedestrian Plaza so the burough held a community meeting in June in high school cafeteria was relatively well attended obviously it was mixed opinions but from what I felt seem like it was relatively positive and a lot of questions asked both related to the project as well as impacts of the project and just general questions about how development Works uh and their impacts to the community and accordingly the purpose of this plan really is to amend that 2021 plan with the concept plan that was presented with uh some specific Provisions for public benefits uh right sizing some of the land use height massing and general design standards uh generally speaking the bur recognized that with specific reference to track C being an expanded area there needed to be an enhanced vision and updated zoning regulations for that larger area which again allows for a larger building and a series of public benefit that we want to see that you can't do Under the underlying Zone I did want to note uh as Council male indicated that this plan really is a repackaging of the old plan that's because we want to make it more efficient so the easier to read the introductions much shorter and we organize the existing conditions to one chap and the vision and development standards for each track are now together without the existing conditions inter spersed in between it reads a lot better it allows for future amendments more efficiently meaning less time and a little cheaper uh but more importantly there was a enhanced vision and rewrite of the track C area for the purposes of this presentation uh so want to not that tracks a b and d did not change really about the track state and that's where we're here tonight we have a presentation sorry we have a rone plan before you introduced by Council and as chairperson H indicated that we are reviewing this we plan for consistency or rather whether not whether it is inconsistent not inconsistent with the master so part of the procedure it's a typical process that be done here typical presentation that we did uh the the re plan is authorized by Council and is it can be uh prepared and then referred to the planning board for consistency riew then goes second read the other option is that the uh governing body has the planning board created theel plan in which case that satisfies the consistency and then you go right to the first reading and then for second reading for adoption the process that we have elected to use as we've done all other re plans is the former which is the council authorizes the planner to do a three plan and it goes to the plan work it's consistency the left side of that FL TR as to the statutory requirements it's it's is spelled out in a local we housing law there's eight components of the the law that must be in a reel plan and that includes for example uh local objectives the relationship of this plan with local objective basically relationship to the master plan and other features proposed land use standard it could be General but I think as you can tell we go through a great effort to provide a lot of detailed information so it's clear what exactly is proposed and we do spend a lot of time preparing a detailed vision and some give background the attempt here is to give a lot of transparency so this is where we came from this is what we would like to do and then we have some detailed standards and then there's other requirements such as relationship to the continuous municipalities to the county as well as to the state plan all the components of the plan or satisfied to this plan just and I'll incorporate by reference the um this page that's seen on the screen and uh contained in the revelop as part of this presentation as for the existing conditions quite simply it's mainly in a down area between South South and North 2 and South and North Third um the tracks a through D are shown on the screen track a is on the north side of Baron Avenue just west of North track B is a couple homes on the opposite side of track a track C is basically performance Market property and surrounding properties fronting on Maran Avenue as well as property that fronts on Magnolia Street and South Third Avenue and finally track B is a larger area of land um that straddles several properties and also includes part of North Third and some properties on the west side of North thir the idea at the time of course was parking structure centralized structure and they space and through uh conversations with the planning board and the public the decision was to to really put that to bed and focus on the South Third where town tables was and on the photos on the screen on the right really are existing conditions of the track SE specific and uh you can see there's a mix of uses residential buildings that are converted to office uses some uh medical office dental pediatric uh there's an existing home on Milly Street there is a uh daycare center and four Apartments fling on South Third and also a home a three-bedroom for unit that's fronting on uh South Second adjacent to the so just zooming in for those a little more context so South the track SE as you can tell plan has expanded I'll go over how that came to be um the existing Zoning for track is quite mixed and that's partly why we're here tonight because we want to basically take the 21 plan 2021 reop plan expand it to the entirety of the expanded fopr TR right now it's mix uh containing the 2021 Redevelopment plan on basically the bur own blocks with the 2005 re plan adjacent to it as well as certain property at the corner of r Avenue and South Second those are in the CBD Zone Central business district this SW property in a PO distri district and there another property in the ra residential district so it's it's a mixed bag of Don districts so as I indicate at the top of the presentation I just want to explain how the size and shape of tracky has evolved over time in 2005 it was focused on the properties on North sorry Ren Avenue but did not include the corn Lots on South Third and South 2 it did incl include um the bur basic Farmers Market all the way up to Industry in 2021 again with the strategy of trying to jumpstart Redevelopment the bur focused on lands that it owned on this particular parcel because it had OB with the proper that it owns has a greater libr to be able to consider Redevelopment uh as opposed to having mixed ownership you have to assemble properties but the own properties are in play it was easier to advertise these properties are available hence the RP process so the 2021 plan effectively focused on the bur owned properties with after the RFP was issued and response came back from and H was selected again the bur decided to well since you are considering additional land as was permitted in the RFP let's take the opportunity to consider expanding The Reel footprint to these additional areas primarily because they want to consider secondary access from side streets without having to focused on Maran Avenue because having only so act on mol Street does create a sort of a pressure point there which is adjacent to two homes and the plan board agreed that with the study that it does mean area need criteria area needel criteria and Council adop it thatly meant that Redevelopment footprint has outspan to all those lots and this Redevelopment plan takes the 21 plan outlin in yellow and expands it to the majority of that footprint you'll notice that Lots 37 3839 are not including this particular plan because after the discussion with the feral Council it was determined that that area probably needs a seever Redevelopment plan because of this relationship to the Future Poli so uh in terms of the original vision for try um the primary purpose was again bring more people to live work and Shop downtown and the idea was that with the bur Lots the narrow part in the center that would focus on one or more taller mixed use buildings which allows for for the fifth Story step back the this was determined to be a particularly interesting lot because the way to Street B this an opportunity to terminate that view that this does when we drive on either direction Avenue you have an opportunity to create a special landmark building uh the connection or walkway from a what could be a public Plaza in Ridin needed to connect to the parking area and Magnolia basically uh it was important to maintain that Public Access as the farm Market does today from Magnolia to R The Limited retail Frontage was intentional because we did not want to canalize existing retail furnit along the street already is too much in fact there's vacancy so there was no need to really exacerbate the problem by having more retail furnish debt that being said there's nothing in the planet that stops you from having a retail the idea was that to focus more on ground floor active uses which could be restaurant space it could be residential space workout space um and is really trying to fill in that space along there making an active Lively and comfortable Street skatee and it allow for uh apartments on the ground level but not fronting on the street so there's some flexibility in the plan and the originally to try to really take this to the next step the jump start development in terms of the master plan uh this area track C was one of the focus areas uh just gener understanding that there's an opportunity to redevelop here on track C before even track C was defined master plan about in 2019 so this is sort of taking that next step we analyzing or improving the plan and one of the strategies of the downtown area specifically calls for considering creating infill Redevelopment plans and consider expanding the types of uses on downtown not just retail as well as expanding the custom base rates for these uh businesses not only on the track but along the whole downtown area effectively meaning we need rooftops we need Apartments Downtown support downtown when it came to considering a concept plan for track C after the RFP process we we knew obviously with a bigger footprint we had to change the plan um but we did not want to lose the original focus of track C it wasn't one of those situations where oh someone came in it doesn't matter what it said we're just going to do whatever we want it was important to the burough Council and obviously the planning board that whatever we want to do here is maintain and that was an important uh effort an important strategy to really work with the conditional view devel to manage this large equiprint because with the larger footprint means not only are there opportunities but there's challenges you have to really manage the size of the building really have to manage how do we preserve that initial Vision which was allow for pedestrian access between ridan and uh magol having public parking because there already is sort of public parking right next to the form church and having Apartments down town but don't make it so big that it overtakes the um the street scape so it was important for us to maintain that initial vision and manage the bulk regulations and really use this opportunity to get some Community benefits so when we had that June meeting there were some renderings and plans that were shared and that was actually Incorporated through the plan we felt that they were very well done it shows the cation between the bur and re developer uh as part of refining that Vision it was important that even though the underlying zoning allows for a four story building it does not look like a four-story building that's one long wall along r that is possible under the underl Z this re plan prevents that because it's allowing for a fit story which the 21 plan does allow but keeping it into the center of the uh project it allows for a four story but you'll notice that part the building is actually three stories along Avenue but step back a little because there's residential uses here so we worked really hard with the condition revelop to make sure this building did not look like one building in fact it looks like OB four or five or six to make it look like it was built up over time uh as part of that presentation given to the public in that June committee meeting uh we asked the developer let give us a sense what this might look like so this is existing and this is a concept doesn't mean it's going to look exactly like this but this was a an idea of what it might look like it's trying to pay home lives to the existing historic building uh with a pitch Roo and residential field scale and Expos texture as you get closer to fa to the center of the block with the fance market Main Street H park building is you'll see that it was carefully designed to make sure that the building even at five stories is not the L building you notice here it's it looks like a three-story building for the majority of the footprint and the five-story portion is Sly different in terms of scale as well as mass to make it look like it's a different building and it's one building so in terms of the actual amendments to the plan in terms of land use that is the zoning ort uh one of the comments from the public meetings got to make sure there's flexibility I think there some members of the public rightfully so said I not crazy about this two-story restaurant why can't it be Flex space or party rental space we put that into the plan you think that's a good idea the permitted uses in the 21 plan already allow for flexibility but when we heard that they want additional uses including comments made by the plan board in the past allowing for preschools those uses are now in the plan and really frankly those are strategies are use going forward we're all we do on plans going forward in terms of the non uh in terms of the residential uses on the ground floor they already were allowed but now we're allowing on rident but only with limited fundage we did not want this to be entirely multi family building home rid The Limited funing that 40% Max um given the larger footprint which includes lot 13 and Lot 19 Lot 19 being the single family house Magnolia you want to make clear that that use is a permitted use and can stay a permitted use and they are not required to be part of the application if they choose participate in this project sell property and be part of the larger building footprint that's allows to a little bit more quirky but how did you get Lot 19 into the plan because I remember when they came to meetings way back when when the burrow bought the back half of one of those really long lots to kind of expand and they were here and they expressed their concerns at the time so I'm just curious how Lot 19 ended up in the plan it was part of the 2023 investigation it was I think I believe it was determined to fit the criteria under the section three criteria which is adjacency or would be um allow for a larger footprint allow for a lar are be more conducive to so on its own it wouldn't meet the criter but because it was adjacent to and has serve Redevelopment wased uh but ultimately that use because we had to add that property into the U Redevelopment plan we made sure that we allow a single family toct in this new plan terms of bul regulations as we mentioned we did not want to just simply take the 21 plan last were four stories of History step back to Simply stretch to the new footprint we knew we wanted to break down the Ming as it gets Clos closer to North sorry South Second Avenue so five stories are permitted in the current plan and they are situated generally into the center of the project um if you go through the bul regulations you'll notice that there are certain step requirements from say second pushing that fth story where it's allowed to make sure it doesn't come all the way towards one second and again requires building to step down to three and a half stories as you get closer to North and this that is less than current r plan and for that matter the CBD Central Business is that CBD Zone allows for four stories so this R Planet actually requirement that the height of building be lower in terms of the uh stepb back regulations uh we wanted to provide for deeper setbacks along a Avenue so we can combinate for wider sidewalks which is needed in downtown uh especially when there's residential uses adjacent to we did not want to create a situation where the residents were on top of the street so it's pushed back like a brownstone Style with Stoops uh and no step back requirement is much deeper than the underlying Zone the CBD and the 21 plan 2005 plan for that matter allows for a zero foot step back this plan pushes the back 10 15 ft trying to manage the form this form based code uh in terms of the stepback of Magnolia it was important then important now and we maintain that deep setep back of Magnolia stre we did not want this project to loom over the residential neighborhood it keeps the 200t setback in terms of the setback and Reformed Church the underlying Zoning for the CBD allows for a zero foot set back this plan requires five foot step back for the first floor and you go deeper as you get taller so it's providing the light and air that you would want between a building and reform chur the current zoning does not require that again staying on the topic of regulations we maintain building coverage of 70% but we did clarify as with other plans that the bu overlay zoning that am many deaths over paring area does not count as building coverage after all it's parly just a green roof over it in terms of improv covers maintain 90% we've heard comments many comments about the concern about how manage rainfall but keeping the Improv coverage 90% which is permitted under underlying zoning in the CBD 2005 and the 2021 plan we are allow for additional coverage if it can only be managed through uh appropriate strategies such as re infrastructure no matter what the project has to comply with NDP St Water Management standards in terms of involvment standards in addition to managing setbacks and height we added uh stringent really development design standards to require the building be broken up to multiple forms it must look like it has been built up as several buildings and in order to enjoy the zoning that's provideed for this new plan it must enter into reel U Council as reel meaning the concept plan they propose if this is adopted must conort to this plan and if govern body must be comfortable that it does so I'm sure I'll play a role make sure does it yes entering to develop AG then you go for cycline you'll be seeing this again uh in terms of again building design and streetscape stands want to ensure that the front Frontage of the project is designed in a way that is walkable enjoyable and safe I think with the zero foot setback long four a 5e long wall that would be allowed online zoning would not be conducive to creating a nice Street State uh in terms of public benefits this plan requires public open space both indoor and outdoor it requires it the underlying zon can't do that in terms of public parking spaces this plan requires that public parking spaces be provided to the public the underline zoning can't do that and again with development standards we are requiring that all curb Cuts along ran Avenue and North Second at least the one that's close to the intersection be removed but there's adding flexibility where you could put new ones just as long as you don't put it on r Avenue you have to have vehicular access from all other streets other than terms of The Pedestrian access from R Magnolia that's part of the initial vision for traxi that's being maintained in fact we added a requirement that must be at least 20 ft wide sort of break up the building massing but allow for a of passageway uh that should be designed with art public art and some Landscaping to make that walk from ridan through a building enjoyable again wider sidewalks with improved Street pit uh Street tree pit infrastructure as well as additional yard trees Foundation Landscaping all those are required in this re plant and finally I think as you you recognize in all the plants you right we have um pretty strange examp for Green Building uh Universal Design Green infrastructure and St management those features are in this plan as well that's it um in terms of the making def finding whether it's not inconsistent with the mass plan I already go over that U this really meets the spirit of the what really downtown strategies for this area which includes utilizing um infill taller custom Tor infill Redevelopment plans expanding variety of active ground floor uses expanding down Town resident customer base uh established a public gathering space and we know we've been talking about potentially a public Plaza on South Third but this plan actually adds more so there's a relationship that can be built that makes it a much more enjoyable space uh parking management plan uh that was done separately but in this case we wanted to manage parking by making sure there's public parking so any way we're achieving that micro into this plan and of course um upgrade any level up encourage any level upgrade I think with this plan with the architecture that you see work in collaboration with the conditional redeveloper we're achieving that richly designed but there's still more to do still more negotiating to go through before we go for site plan goog assuming that this three plan is adopted in terms of the relationship to contigous municipalities these areas tracks a through D including track C being amended in the center town so generally speaking I'll incorporate by reference U the talking points in the report you'll see that because it is in the center of town and really the modification plan is not that significant uh it should have no impact on City New Brunswick p scataway r terms of the County uh they do encourage Redevelopment and they're currently working on their comprehensive plan we do anticipate that when they do that plan that our site will be consistent or incorporated into the conf plan County in terms of the state plan uh I'll just one second the safe plan generally seeks to improve or rather I should say um Revitalize cities and towns the this area in fact the entirety of the Poland park is in the metropolitan planning area which encourages using Redevelopment to revitalize cities and towns so this plan I feel is not inconsistent with the local master plan and does not have any impact on continuous mentalities the county and the uh state plan and I think as you heard me imply the underlying zoning actually allows for a project that would not look nearly as good as this it's a yes um but I would also know that do some test fits with the underlying zoning there could be a project significantly larger in terms of the um residential density so we're using this opportunity to sort of manage the design manage the number of units which is lower than what could be permitted and get some Community benefits which include more public space public parking sort of kind of re keep what's already there sort of management parking for customer parking along the street as well as to manage parking for the Reformed Church that's Incorporated the plan and um I didn't mention this in great any detail whatsoever but in terms of affordable housing we're going to defer to the underlying standard which is you must provide affordable housing 15% set aside that's it okay just as a reminder for everyone following along at home because they didn't say it already the current master plan can be found at the bur's website at www.hpborrow.com if you want to pull that up for your personal review so with that do any members of the board have comments could we have the the slides um it boils it down to something a bit smaller and when we start this additionally it'll be helpful you enjoy reading 100 plus pages I certainly do that we done for all our plans it's intended to be available I I well done for I did enjoy seriously um so um just a couple of things and um I Ur to me a couple I think it's um It's A and C if not d as well uh existing Park uh bus stops now there there's no um there's no bus shelters any of these um but probably Bank um overhang and they serves as a shelter and I I think it fall on the street Furniture right but I think bus shelters should be something strongly encouraged in the because in all these you not you know if you want to encourage people to not drive you've got a you know bus service going from New Brunswick right through um meritan Avenue so for some of those if we can um it doesn't cost to borrow any money trans will provide you the shelter but it needs to be incorporated in the plans uh for the developer makes so um not move the location of the bus but but you know a bus shelf provides you know um yes that point that actually came up as a comment from the public which is what about the bus stop um it's not directly addressing the plan but can certainly be addressed through rment agreement and I think frankly it's not a huge cost you're right but I'm sure the be willing to at least entertain the idea because that would support the the lower apartment requirement as well as the idea of encouraging people who want to live here may not need as same Cars Plus upgrade of bus shelter any street that matter will benefit the entire I think you call their Street Furniture you don't have to change the plan right yes to be fair I want say it will happen we're cly Cur through negoti because the bench is a lot cheaper than a redo of shelter but that being said in the grand Cena things it shouldn't be that b big a deal but I'll certainly take the hard on WE negotiate well when ear Castle continues his negotiations with the um condition redeveloper and before they sement really what has to happen first they need to enter theelement so you can certainly be added as a I just I have one more question about really parcel a and maybe I just because it's been a while um was it always was it always a phasing approach to um a because because you have the cleaners and sort of along that was it always because I mean I illustration shows like not the whole uh Corridor just one build one building is that TR yeah check right I recall a prior an exhibit was in the2 plan doesn't require phasing but it was anticipated perhaps phasing understanding there all these uses contamination for that matter that might make it difficult to assemble or start a project it was more of a suggestion because we understood there would be issues that you want to build all at once um this plan glosses over that but doesn't stop there being a phasing approach but I'm sure all those issues would be addressed it's it was just there I just never I didn't see and then I guess one more thing on track I guess was part of part 20 that um which is part of the mgy that was always I believe the says portion of just one last question uh was related to I mean some of these there a couple of um couple of parcels you mentioned have renters and so in terms of um any sort of relocation assistance um is that something that would be uh negotiating the redeveloper uh I believe so and that's what any plan that we do it's a standard requirement here it's under 7.10 um we recognize that there are several residents and business within the project area which means all P tracks They will be permitted to remain within the project area for foreseeable feature and have and they have been incorporated into this plan be the pered uses uh there has anticipated that there would be no displacement of the res requiring a plan so I think what thatly means that whatever needs to happen it's really negotiation between the property owner and the attendant I don't think we would encourage that they be kicked out so to speak um and I think in any way that we offer assistance we would do that it's not required under the the law to assist not tenants I think if it relates to condemnation or taking property it would be but since they are incorporate into the plan they allowed to remain but I believe that's a talking point for all both conditional developers like howy handles uses for example U work very hard to make sure that they're yeah I just you know the rents are these are you know quote naturally affordable housing um you know and to lose those even though you're replacing some of it you know because of the require housing requirements you you know it's a you know it's not as many as you might think if you are displacing some people so I just want to just bring that as you know as a point that there are some renters who you know there not many one of the renters is in the house the three bedroom house that's managed by the Reformed Church that's an affordable unit I think critically from a housing plan perspective for housing that needs to be relocated in some way that's definely quick question B at one point we received s applications and then someone said it's it's going to go through Redevelopment where are we uh we in a holding P be because um they're in negotiations with others um about possibly partnering okay so we are in um it's there are there are several different property owners that are having fruitful discussions okay so they're not pushing us and not pushing them is that fair that's fair and it's also perhaps related or unrelated the F Council authorized my firm to do investigation CA station those properties in the retail strip next to it so that might play a role to help them figure it out just a real quick thing I want to make sure the people that watch this later can see us i s the blank should I have we switched back to to people we're P we go all right anybody else have comments or questions about the proposal all right so I've heard a recommendation just to point out that bus shelters should be encouraged as part of the Street Furniture requirements but not necessarily as a proposed amendment so other than that um I'll solicit a motion given our discussions um that this uh ordinance to amend the downtown Redevelopment plan for TR a through D oh yes oh wait I'm sorry before we just note about um naturally affordable hous about retaining or how do I want to say this um you sort of encouraging that um residents in naturally affordable housing be somehow you know not protected but like you know assisted should they have to assisted in the way any that can as well as give them advice for perhaps direction if they perhaps qualify for affordable housing to be put on the list something like that so uh again to highlight the um challenges that people who are currently living there might face when it comes to displacement and relocation and any resources that might be available to those persons right sure and that those two recommendations and business yes businesses to um I make a motion that oh yeah before you do I have to formally open up the meeting to the public for commentary on tonight's presentation but seeing no members of the public present tonight I will close the public portion of comment and now I will solicit a motion make a motion that uh this uh proposed advis plan is not inconsistent with I have a second second okay I'll take it from Dan because I heard him first um all right then we'll take a roll call on the vote Please Mr brusher yes Mr Hal yes Mr Laris yes Mr fman yes Mr Stern Cardel yes Mr Willam yes M yes hey everybody last anyone have any general comments or anything not on our agenda tonight you want to talk about questions comments updates no all right I'm going to open up the meeting to the public once again for any items not on our agenda still seeing no one from the public has joined us in the last 60 seconds was the public portion of the meeting um I guess we should ask out if there's anything else going on since you are still on the agenda if there's any updates no just a couple I mean couple's applications and permits for some additions that's about it exitting as long as improvements continue to flourish all right all right then so I'll solicit a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn all in favor thank you everybody much appreciated as always